ChatterBank2 mins ago
Driving in Dotage?
Retired trucker Johan Prettenthaler, aged 70, has been charged with causing the death of the five Britons in an incident near Hallen, Austria, in which police believe his overtaking minibus forced a tour coach off the road on a blind bend.
Is it not now time to require all drivers over 60 be tested yearly for eyesight, roadcraft and reaction speed? We have all seen examples of elderly drivers either blind to danger leaping headlong into hazards, or frozen with hesitation at the wheel. Is it not time that these people, with reaction times of about a fortnight, be removed from the roads for all our sakes?
Is it not now time to require all drivers over 60 be tested yearly for eyesight, roadcraft and reaction speed? We have all seen examples of elderly drivers either blind to danger leaping headlong into hazards, or frozen with hesitation at the wheel. Is it not time that these people, with reaction times of about a fortnight, be removed from the roads for all our sakes?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hippy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ok that's really harsh. I think older people should be allowed to drive, but should have a test once a year or something. Much needed tighter controls should be put into place definitely. But how can you say undercovers that drivers under 28 should be tested fortnightly etc. I'm guessing you are 29 then?! I'm 21 and I am the safest driver I know! Even my mum doesn't have a heart attack when I'm driving! Seriously though, I think it is all down to learning to drive safely, with assertiveness instead of aggression and using your brain. I've seen some really bad driving from people of all ages so to say just the under 28's should be tested is really unfair. Point made, I'll shut up now!
I agree that ALL drivers should be periodically retested - every two years or so with a written and hazard perception test every five. Also there should be a link between your GP and the DVLA so that they know when you have been banned from driving for epilepsy or medication etc. Problem is who will pay for all of this?
Good point, who would pay? Because I sure as hell couldn't afford the driving test every couple of years! It took me two attempts and almost a year to learn anyway. Who would deal with making sure everyone has re-taken their test? And surely we would run out of instructors because they will all be testing the new drivers. There must be another solution. To be fair though the test HAS got harder and harder as the years go by (you now need to know where to put oil in your car and stuff) but that's no good to all the oldies who have been driving since they were 15 or whatever.
Personally, I think the Government missed a major opportunity when they introduced the written element into the driving test. They could easily have included personality and intelligence testing, too. Thus, we might have prevented some of the aggressive cretins we see on the roads daily from ever getting there. Bad driving is not age-related.
Well put quiz monster. But when the aggressive people etc are eliminated from driving because of their personalities, would they be able to take the test again? How soon after? I don't think there is an easy solution. You can't take away people's independence, particularly those who live out in the sticks, how are they supposed to get food etc if their personality fails them on a driving test?
Whenever any old person does anything out of the ordinary, young people always attribute it to his or her age. How do you know, Hippy, that this driver's age had anything to do with the accident? Perhaps he's always been a bad driver, or - more likely - it was a lapse of judgment that could have happened to a driver of 25 or 45.
here's what the DVLA website says about car drivers
"Age is no bar to the holding of a licence. DVLA requires confirmation at age of 70 that no medical disability is present, thereafter a 3 year licence is issued subject to satisfactory completion of medical questions on the application form. Notwithstanding, as ageing progresses, a driver or his relative(s) may be aware that the combination of progressive loss of memory, impairment in concentration and reaction time with possible loss of confidence, suggest consideration be given to cease driving. Physical frailty is not per se a bar to the holding of a licence."
And about bus and lorry drivers
"Re-application with medical confirmation of continuing satisfactory fitness is required at age 45 and 5 yearly thereafter until 65, when annual application is required."
It is also worth reminding people that if they continue to drive when unfit, this may invalidate their insurance
Yes, it is "not now time to require all drivers over 60 be tested yearly for eyesight, roadcraft and reaction speed", and yes, it is also "not time that these people, with reaction times of about a fortnight, be removed from the roads for all our sakes". NB the very careful and deliberate use of the word "not" (as given in your question).
I was pleased to see that most people agreed with what I thought, that ALL drivers should have periodic tests of competence, rather in the way that the vehicles are subject to yearly Ministry of Transport tests. I think the age of a driver does not in itself indicate a bad or daft driver, they can be of any age. However, it is without doubt that reaction times slow down as we get older, but not as much as might be imagined in those whose minds are active.
As for who would pay for this, the answer is clear, the driver. The same objection was made when the yearly mechanical test was introduced for brakes, lights and steering, now expanded to include loads of other factors. I have to undergo a medical exam to renew my Passenger Carrying Vehicle licence every five years, and I am charged �60 by my local surgery for the privilege. Who pays? Me of course; who else. Let's have an MoT for drivers I say. It can only improve standards in general and surely contribute to saving lives on the road.
As for who would pay for this, the answer is clear, the driver. The same objection was made when the yearly mechanical test was introduced for brakes, lights and steering, now expanded to include loads of other factors. I have to undergo a medical exam to renew my Passenger Carrying Vehicle licence every five years, and I am charged �60 by my local surgery for the privilege. Who pays? Me of course; who else. Let's have an MoT for drivers I say. It can only improve standards in general and surely contribute to saving lives on the road.
I would certainly agree that there should be a link between GPs/Hospitals and the DVLA. Bad driving may not be age related but can often be health related and, unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of pig-headed people around who believe that being allowed to drive is their right, no matter whether they are still capable or not. Equally, a decline in something like eyesight can be such a gradual process that the person suffering may not realise that the problem has become serious enough to affect them driving - therefore, where possible, the medical profession should be able to have input into who retains their license.
There was a documentary on TV a couple of years ago that carried out various tests on drivers and concluded that (something like- I don't remember the exact details)the average 18 year old, after having drunk two pints of beer, still had better reaction times than the average, sober, 65 year old. Of course, I say this as a statement of fact and am certainly not encouraging young people to drink and drive.
Yes, older people (I suggest over 70) should be issued with a two year licence and then re-tested: I see far too many examples of them being a danger to themselves, and more importantly, to other people. Equally, men should not be allowed to drive until they are at least 21 - at 17/18 young men do not possess the maturity to be in charge of a car.
Scubaboy could you be accused of a bit of sexism there? I think 18 is old enough to own a car and most people are mature enough to handle this responsibly. There is the minority of "boy racers" who insist on racing around terrarising the local car park/one way system/wherever, but you can't tar all "boys" with the same brush.
If these "boy racers" really want to drive around like maniacs then you have to know that their insurance is actually at least three times the usual because they add huge stereos, tyres, L.E.D's under their car and therefore their insurance is through the roof. I'm not saying that they should be able to do it but just that not everyone chooses to do that. And anyway, I've been to a couple of "boy racer" meets (yes they do happen, with police present too so what they do is NOT illegal all the time) and I have to say there are a fair few drivers who are actually in the over 30's bracket. Please don't tell me that all young drivers are wreckless. I'm 21 and I haven't driven wrecklessly, caused an accident or been hit in the four years I've been driving.
My Grandad drove up until he was 80 and had at least 5 accidents in the 10 years before that which I can remember. Luckily he never killed anyone (some might say not through want of trying) but it could easily have been different. Towards when he stopped driving he would only drive at 20mph on ANY road and I don't think he had a reaction time it was so slow!
Some people that age haven't had even an eye test for 20 years and they're a liability. Their pride in many cases makes them unable to admit that they are just not up to driving any more and an annual test would take the decision out of their hands if they weren't safe. I'm not saying all pensioners are bad drivers though, many young people are too but at least they have passed a test relatively recently!
I don't think this stereotyping does anyone much good. In New Zealand a driver has to take a medical at the age of 75 now. I'd suggest regular medicals for everyone, young people get problems as well.
In addition in NZ at 80 you have to take a basic test. In fact well over 90 % pass the test. This backs up data from other places that most (but not all sadly) older drivers give up when they know its time.
There is no data for drivers under 60 giving up having recognised their inability to drive safely because its never happened (said jokingly but with some truth behind it)
